Impact of miscentering on patient dose and image noise in x-ray CT imaging: Phantom and clinical studies

Physica Medica

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 191-199

  Habibzadeh, M A ^a,b   Ay, M R ^b,c,d   Asl, A R Kamali ^a   Ghadiri, H ^b,c   Zaidi, H ^e,f,g  

^a SHAHID BEHESHTI UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^c TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^d TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^e GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^f UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^g UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Image quality; Miscentering; Patient dose; Phantoms; X ray CT

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; DOSIMETRY; HUMAN; IMAGE NOISE; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL ERROR; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NOISE; PATIENT POSITIONING; PHANTOM; RADIATION DOSE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURFACE DOSE; X RAY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTIFACTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT POSITIONING; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862170887     PISSN: 11201797     EISSN: 1724191X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2011.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Klingebiel R., Siebert E., Diekmann S., Wiener E., Masuhr F., Wagner M., et al. 4-D imaging in cerebrovascular disorders by using 320-slice CT: feasibility and preliminary clinical experience. Acad Radiol 2009, 16(2):123-129.
2. Kalender W.A. X-ray computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51(13):R29-R43.
3. Boone J.M. Multidetector CT: opportunities, challenges, and concerns associated with scanners with 64 or more detector rows. Radiology 2006, 241(2):334-337.
4. Shrimpton P.C., Hillier M.C., Lewis M.A. Data from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK 2003, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton.
5. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation 2008, UNSCEAR, United Nations, Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly, United Nations, New York.
6. Brenner D.J., Hall E.J. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(22):2277-2784.
7. Shrimpton P.C., Jones D.G., Hillier M.C. Survey of CT practice in the UK: part 2; dosimetric aspects 1991, National Radiological Protection Board.
8. Shrimpton P.C., Edyvean S. CT scanner dosimetry. Br J Radiol 1998, 71(841):1-3.
9. Mettler F.A., Wiest P.W., Locken J.A., Kelsey C.A. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000, 20(4):353-359.
10. Hart D., Wall B.F. UK population dose from medical X-ray examinations. Eur J Radiol 2004, 50(3):285-291.
11. Curry T.S., Christensen E.E., Murry R.C., Dowdey J.E. Christensen's physics of diagnostic radiology 1990, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia. 4th ed.
12. Brooks R.A., Di Chiro G. Statistical limitations in x-ray reconstructive tomography. Med Phys 1976, 3(4):237-240.
13. Kalender W.A., Wolf H., Suess C., Gies M., Greess H., Bautz W.A. Dose reduction in CT by on-line tube current control: principles and validation on phantoms and cadavers. Eur Radiol 1999, 9(2):323-328.
14. Kalra M.K., Prasad S., Saini S., Blake M.A., Varghese J., Halpern E.F., et al. Clinical comparison of standard-dose and 50% reduced-dose abdominal CT: effect on image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 179(5):1101-1106.
15. Donnelly L.F., Emery K.H., Brody A.S., Laor T., Gylys-Morin V.M., Anton C.G., et al. Minimizing radiation dose for pediatric body applications of single-detector helical CT: strategies at a large children's hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001, 176(2):303-306.
16. Koller C.J., Eatough J.P., Bettridge A. Variations in radiation dose between the same model of multislice CT scanner at different hospitals. Br J Radiol 2003, 76(911):798-802.
17. Kalra M.K., Maher M.M., Toth T.L., Schmidt B., Westerman B.L., Morgan H.T., et al. Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology 2004, 233(3):649-657.
18. Keat N. CT scanner automatic exposure control systems 2005, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London.
19. Nickoloff E.L., Dutta A.K., Lu Z.F. Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. Med Phys 2003, 30(3):395-402.
20. Schindera S.T., Nelson R.C., Toth T.L., Nguyen G.T., Toncheva G.I., DeLong D.M., et al. Effect of patient size on radiation dose for abdominal MDCT with automatic tube current modulation: phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190(2):W100-W105.
21. Toth TL, Cesmelia E, Ikhlef A. Image quality and dose optimization using novel X-ray source filters tailored to patient size. In: Proceedings of SPIE; 2005. p. 283-291.
22. Tack D., Gevenois P.A., Abada H.T. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography 2007, Springer, Berlin; New York.
23. Aviles Lucas P., Castellano I.A., Dance D.R., Vano Carruana E. Analysis of surface dose variation in CT procedures. Br J Radiol 2001, 74(888):1128-1136.
24. Toth T., Ge Z., Daly M.P. The influence of patient centering on CT dose and image noise. Med Phys 2007, 34(7):3093-3101.
25. Namasivayam S., Kalra M.K., Mittal P., Small W.C. Can radiation exposure associated with abdominal and/or pelvic CT be minimized with better practice? 2006, ARRS, Vancouver, canada.
26. Udayasankar U, Kalra M, Li J, Toth T, Seamans J. Multidetector scanning of the abdomen and pelvis: a study for evaluation of size compensated automatic tube current modulation technique in 100 subjects. In: RSNA 2006; 2006.
27. Siegel M.J., Schmidt B., Bradley D., Suess C., Hildebolt C. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape. Radiology 2004, 233(2):515-522.
28. Papadakis A.E., Perisinakis K., Damilakis J. Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult multidetector CT examinations: a phantom study on dose reduction and image quality. Med Phys 2008, 35(10):4567-4576.